11/7/23

Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) ” The Origin of Humanity and Evolution” (Part 17 of 22)

0147 So far, I have two levels to the Traducian doctrine.

0148 Both of these levels are explicit abstractions, drawing from the foundational stories of Adam and Eve.

The stories of Adam and Eve ask us to recognize a possibility.

These two levels of explicit abstraction arise from that possibility.

These two levels of abstraction tell us that Adam and Eve stand at the beginning of our current Lebenswelt.

0149 Except for the Creation Story, all other written origin stories of the ancient Near East concur with the stories of Adam and Eve. All testify that humans are a recent creation. Prior to 2023, no scientific hypothesis accounts for this testimony, except for the hypothesis of the first singularity.

Premodern Christian theologians know that Adam and Eve occupy the content level. The question is how. Saint Augustine proposes the normal context of Original Sin_3a. Adam and Eve, in disobeying God’s command, are thrown onto their own devices. Their reason is dulled. They are tarnished Image Bearers of God. And, that tarnish is experienced as disorienting waves of desire_1a.

Cupid is the Roman god of desire. He is perpetually adolescent. He is the love-child of Venus, the goddess of love, and Mars, the god of war. Saint Augustine puts a label on our almost irresistible waves of desire_1a. He calls them, con (with) cupi (Cupid) scence (being). Concupiscence_1a is “being with Cupid”. Cupid relishes having a good time.

0150 Original Sin_3a is the normal context. Concupiscence is the potential_1a.

The question is, “How to label the actuality?”

Heaving bodies [substantiate] soulful emissions?

0151 I suppose modern society is no longer polite society. No one really wants to discuss, much less apply an appropriate label, to the content-level actuality_2a virtually underlying the situation-level actuality of sperm [and] egg_2b.

Fortunately, the fairy tales of Adam and Eve provide a suitable label. After Eve is introduced to Adam as his helper (think of the irony of that), Adam is overjoyed. The storyteller then provides a commentary, explaining why a man and a woman get married. The two become one flesh.

0152 Each of the terms in the content-level nested form is an explicit abstraction.

Yet, the result is a intuitively satisfying category-based nested form that says, “Even in marriage, concupiscence operates. Even though the waters of baptism remove the stain of Original Sin, the potential for disorienting waves of desireremains. Be on guard. We can fall into temptation at any moment.”

0153 Original Sin_3a is the consequence of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Original Sin_3a is a normal context for our current Lebenswelt. If we are all subject to Original Sin because we are directly descended from Adam and Eve, then Traducianism explains how.

0154 Ironically, Augustine’s position, that we are all direct descendants of Adam and Eve, is a scientific (as well as theological) proposition.

Modern genetics proves Augustine’s proposition to be incorrect.

Yet, there is a certain honesty to the Traducian doctrine.

The doctrine offers a certain intellectual satisfaction.

And, this satisfaction tells us something about the character of our current Lebenswelt.

11/6/23

Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) ” The Origin of Humanity and Evolution” (Part 18 of 22)

0155 Loke defends Traducianism, not because it is technically correct, but because it is beautiful. It is internally coherent. It is intellectually satisfying. It offers a way to appreciate how Original Sin is propagated by our own desires (to propagate). Who says that Saint Augustine doesn’t have a sense of humor?

Here is a picture of the content, situation and perspective levels of the doctrine.

0156 Genetics demonstrates that there is no originating pair.

Traducianism is dead.

Yet, Original Sin_3a still contextualizes the potential of concupiscence_1a.

Long live Traducianism.

0157 The hypothesis of the first singularity provides a scientific pathway that may replace the interscope of Traducianism. Traducianism aims to explain how Adam’s Original Sin… or is it Original Guilt?.. is transferred from Adam and Eve to all humanity. But, that is not all. Clearly, the situation level of the Traducian doctrine contains pure biology. The perspective and content levels allow us to understand human biology.

0158 Modern science establishes that a single breeding pair cannot be the genetic origin of all humans. Hence, the grasping at straws in Loke’s formulation of Adam and Eve as the originators of contemporary Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA.

0159 Loke searches for an alternative and finds, in God’s assignment of the title, “Image Bearers of God”, to Adam and Eve, the potential for a non-genetic mechanism for the transfer of Original Sin.

At the same time, since the stories of Adam and Eve convey such a strong impression that they constitute the first humans, Loke is drawn back to the mechanism proposed so long ago by Saint Augustine. We are literally the descendants of Adam and Eve and the mechanism starts with concupiscience_1a residing in the content-level potential of the Traducian interscope.

0160 With the aid of the category-based nested form, we may now appreciate the Traducian doctrine as an exemplar of explicit abstraction in our current Lebenswelt. This doctrine presents a complete interscope. Complete interscopes are intellectually satisfying.

In Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2017) Why Only Us?, Razie Mah proposes that langue (the mental system of differences that is arbitrarily related to parole, speech-alone talk) can be depicted as a three-level interscope, a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.

In Razie Mah’s Blog, for April 2023, the posts titled, Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind”, portray a complete interscope for the modern academic fad of “wokeness”.

0161 Here is how understanding works, as far as the category-based nested form is concerned.

Consider an actuality₂. Understanding comes when the inquirer finds a normal context₃ and potential₁ for that actuality. A filled-in category-based nested form conveys understanding.

The same statements apply to the three-level interscope.

When all the elements of a three-level interscope are filled in, then the inquirer understands the situation-level category-based nested form.

Whether the understanding is correct or honest, that is another matter.

11/4/23

Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) ” The Origin of Humanity and Evolution” (Part 19 of 22)

0162 What contributes this feeling of understanding in a completed three-level interscope?

Understanding conveys a feeling of satisfaction.

For example, when confronted with an uncontextualized actuality, one does not know its normal context or potential. That does not convey any feeling of satisfaction.

In contrast, an actuality_2a in a content-level nested form is not scary. It is content. The normal context_3a is what is happening. The potential is for ‘something’ to happen_1a. Knowing the normal context_3a and potential_1a at least conveys a feeling of understanding.

If understanding comes from placing an actuality₂ into a nested form, then how much more intellectually satisfying is situating_b content_a in the light of a perspective_c?

0163 The Traducian doctrine is beautiful to behold.

When I look down each column in the interscope for the Traducian doctrine, I see a virtual nested form.

0164 For example, here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.

Two of these actualities belong to the two configurations of body and soul.

Their arrangement offers a theological lesson.

The perspective-level actuality_2c associates to grace. Soul [informs] body.

The content-level actuality_2b associates to nature, where body [substantiates] soul. Look at the content-level actuality_2aand make the comparison. The doctrine of Traducianism offers a lesson that coheres to the meaning of marriage.

0165 Here is the virtual nested form in the realm of normal contexts.

Do I see an intimation of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus?

The funny thing is Mary, Mother of God, is not simply a uterus.

Mary is the mediatrix_3b, dwelling between the normal context₃ of the Holy Spirit_3c and the potential₁ of Original Sin_1a. She is baptized even before Christ institutes the sacrament of baptism. Her womb is the site of God’s revelation.

Replace the normal context of uterus_3b with the name of Mary, Mother of God, and one may appreciate why the Catholic Church proclaims that Mary is born without the stain of Original Sin. How else could she have the courage of her convictions? How else could she bear her unbearable responsibility?

0166 Here is the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility.

0167 This nested form captures the essence of the Augustinian notion of the corruption of humanity following Adam’s transgression. Theological debate ranges from theatrical claims of total depravity to scholarly assessments concerning the loss of original justice. We are conceived in sin. How does that impair our ability to wear the badge, “Image Bearer of God”?

0168 When rendered as a filled-in three-level interscope, the doctrine of Traducianism is beautiful to behold. The virtual nested forms come alive, each in its own way, in the intellectual ferment that Christianity enjoys. Jesus came so that we may have life, abundant life. That includes intellectual life.

11/3/23

Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) ” The Origin of Humanity and Evolution” (Part 20 of 22)

0169 Even though the theological implications of the coincidence between the stories of Adam and Eve and the Ubaid archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia may seem far removed from Loke’s proposal that Adam and Eve are the first ancestors to receive the label, “image of God”, the distance is not so great.

0170 First, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in associates to the creation of humans in the image of God (in the first chapter of Genesis).

Second, our current Lebenswelt associates with Adam and Eve receiving the spoken honorific, “Image Bearers of God”, and then promptly disobeying the only commandment that God gives them.

0171 Section 5.8.2 discusses an awkward difficulty that arises with Adam getting awarded the appellation, “Image Bearer of God”, that presumably passes to his sons, Cain and Abel. Okay… let me correct that… to their (at the time) only remaining son, Cain.

Cain runs away, finds a wife, then moves off to start a city. Loke wonders whether Cain’s wife is merely an animal that happens to be an anatomically modern human. Or, is she created as an image of God, yet is not aware that God could give someone the spoken honorific, “Image Bearer of God”?

0172 Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall (available at smashwords and other e-book venues), treats the awkward issue as follows.

After Cain murders Abel, he complains to God that others (the ones without the rapidly devaluing honorific, “Image Bearer of God”) will kill him. So, God puts a mark on Cain. That mark happens to be the body paint of high-ranking warrior in the village harboring Cain’s wife-to-be.

Of course, when Cain walks into the village wearing such marks, everyone freaks out. The shaman tries to put an end to Cain, but ends up accidently killing the number one warrior in the village. Then, the shaman falls face down before Cain and Cain impetuously kills him.

In order to celebrate, Cain’s future bride (along with her team mates) take the body of the dead warrior and cook up a batch of delicious porridge. She is proud of herself and is disappointed when Cain (after realizing that the meat in the porridge comes from the dead warrior) decides to not finish off his bowl.

0173 Yes, communication in speech-alone talk can be treacherous.

Tell someone, “Get that body out of here and bring me something to eat.”, and see what gets served.

11/2/23

Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) ” The Origin of Humanity and Evolution” (Part 21 of 22)

0174 In chapter six, Loke considers Noah. Noah receives the tarnished title, “Image Bearer of God”, through descent from Adam. The title passes through the doctrine of Traducianism, so the lineage must be genetic. However, the tarnished title also seems to pass beyond Seth’s family line, so to speak, into those animals who are anatomically humans, who laugh at and ridicule Noah for imagining that God would or could punish them. Here, the passage must not be genetic. Maybe it is genealogical. Maybe it is the acquisition of speech-alone talk instead of hand-speech talk.

0175 Does Noah’s flood cover the whole earth?

It depends on how you define the word, “earth”.

0176 Here is a Greimas square that seems appropriate.

0177 The “earth” is the focal word (A). It is what is covered by Noah’s flood.

In contrast to the Genesis use of the word, “earth” (A), is the world of southern Mesopotamia (B). To everyone ridiculing Noah, the world of southern Mesopotamia is all there is. It is their “earth”. So, Noah’s flood destroys this “earth”.

The genealogies (of sorts) immediately following the flood (C) speak against the idea that southern Mesopotamia is the entire earth. The table of nations makes sense when Noah’s children are accepted into the royalty of other peoples based on the celebrity of Noah’s achievement. As far as Genesis is concerned, nations are founded because they receive direct descendants within the Image Bearer of God lineage. It is as if these jurisdictions are not relevant until then.

0178 What does this imply?

Southern Mesopotamia is the center of the world, if not the entire “earth”, until that catastrophic flood, which is noted as a break in the Sumerian king list (D).

This list (D) contrasts with the Genesis table of nations (C) because it represents the records of a public institution. It is entirely possible that the family of Seth lives entirely within public institutions in the Ubaid and Uruk (and later, Sumerian) traditions. So, the Genesis story of Noah’s flood is an insider’s view of a very public shaking of the Uruk political order.

The Sumerian king list (D) suggests that Noah’s flood (A) is indeed, not planetary, since the kingship descends (from heaven) soon afterwards. In this, the list (D) speaks against a literal reading of the Genesis story (A). Also, the list (D) supports the notion (what Loke calls Type C concordism) that Genesis belongs to the literature of the ancient Near East.

This list (D) complements the world of southern Mesopotamia (B), because the king list represents the establishment of order within the Sumerian world. The Sumerian king list is written centuries after the flood. The flood marks a break. The flood denotes the end of a Plutonic year, so to speak.

0179 What else does this imply?

Consider the following Greimas square.

0180 Speech-alone talk and Adam’s lineage starts in the Ubaid (A). Speech-alone talk spreads out from southern Mesopotamia to nearby hand-speech talking cultures.

The subsequent Uruk period (B) contrasts with this beginning. Uruk clearly differentiates from surrounding Neolithic cultures, who now practice speech-alone talk, but are far behind in terms of realizing the creative potential of this new tool of the intellect.

0181 Noah’s flood marks an ecological catastrophe, partially brought about by deforestation in northern Mesopotamia and partially brought about by (what modern insurance policy makers call) divine intervention. During the Uruk archaeological period, speech-alone talk floods into other lands. Egypt, Iran, the Indian subcontinent, China, the Mediterranean, eastern Europe and the lands north of the Caspian Sea, manifest social changes due to exposure to speech-alone talk.

Noah’s flood covers the “earth” of southern Mesopotamia.

The speech-alone talk flood covers the entire Earth.

This “flood” of speech-alone talk (C) speaks against Uruk as composing the entire earth (B) and complements the origination of speech-alone talk with the Ubaid (A).

0182 Consequently, the conditions for the table of nations, following Noah’s flood, are set (D) as the lands surrounding the Uruk, each in its own way, start to undergo trends towards unconstrained social complexity. These trends (D) contradict the exclusive claim of Sumeria as the only place where labor and social specialization increase wealth and power (A). At the same time, these trends (D) complement the achievements that already have occurred in southern Mesopotamia (B).

By the time that the Sumerian Dynastic coalesces, at 2800 U0′, dynastic civilization begins in Egypt and unconstrained social complexity is seeded along the Indus River Valley and the great rivers of China. On the Russian steppes, the proto-Indo-European cultures are already undergoing a transformation into formidable migratory chiefdoms. The Bronze Age is apparent in the Aegean. Even in the Americas, there are indications that speech-alone talk has arrived, on the western coast of what is now Ecuador.

0183 The entire Genesis sequence of stories and genealogies, stretching from Adam to Terah, coincides with the period from the start of the Ubaid (0 U0′) to the end of Ur III (3700 U0′).

If that is the case, then why isn’t the text longer and more elaborate? Why don’t the first eleven chapters of Genesis clearly blend in with the written historical material of the ancient Near East?

One suggestion is found in chapter 13C of An Archaeology of the Fall.

On one hand, when Abram starts his journey, he leaves Sumerian civilization behind. Not all of it, but nearly all of it. The story of the Tower of Babel is no accident. After Ur III, Sumerian is a dead language, known only in writing.

On the other hand, Sarai, remembers the fairy tales that her mother taught her.

11/1/23

Looking at Andrew Ter Ern Loke’s Book (2022) ” The Origin of Humanity and Evolution” (Part 22 of 22)

0184 In chapter seven, Loke concludes.

The concept of Adam and Eve as the “Image Bearers of God” stands at the core of this book.

0185 As much as the author tries to capitalize on the idea that Adam and Eve receive a title, and that this title passes to all humanity through a genetic… oh, a not genetic mechanism, Loke does not arrive at his destination, the answer to the question of the Fall.

How is Original Sin passed from Adam to us?

Why is Jesus the New Adam?

0186 Before Traducianism is challenged by the science of genetics, these questions are easy to answer.

Afterwards, Traducianism itself becomes an example of langue, the mental processing that is arbitrarily related to parole, that is, speech-alone talk.

0187 Yet, there is hope. The first singularity coincides with the fall of Adam and Eve. What is old is made new again.

0188 Future inquiry will extend beyond the book-ends of total depravity and the loss of original justice, into the natures of true versus false and honest versus deceptive.

0189 Who are we?

The behavior of humans in our current Lebenswelt is so different from the behavior of humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, that we might as well label ourselves a different species.

0190 Here is my suggestion.

We should call all humans living in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, Homo sapiens.

We should call all humans living in our current Lebenswelt, Homo boobiens.

0191 Only Homo boobiens can acquire specialized knowledge so exclusive that it makes them unbelievably stupid. In our world of unconstrained complexity, high intelligence empowers profound Dummheit. Just ask the experts. They will tell you that their recipes for disaster are utterly sensible and moral.

0192 Perhaps, in future academic controversies, the coincidence of the fall of Adam and Eve and the hypothesis of the first singularity will inspire evolutionary scientists to compete with Christian theologians in accounting for the Pascal sacrifice.

The Christian theologian says, “Christ dies for our sins.”

The scientist replies, “No, Christ dies for our stupidity.”

Sin results in death. So does stupidity.

Plus, we are never so stupid as when we play word games in order to lie to ourselves.

0193 The attraction of Loke’s theoretical framework, that Adam and Eve are the first to receive the God-given honorific, “Image Bearer of God”, is that the title is immediately spoiled in the Genesis 2.4-4 narrative, where Adam and Eve demonstrate that, while they are certainly created in the image of God, they cannot live up to the title. None of us can.

0194 There is good reason. Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. So, we cannot even live up to who we evolved to be. We are tempted to believe that our own spoken words picture or point to their referents, when they are really placeholders in systems of differences (at least, according to Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern language studies). We can place a label on anything, then use those labels to manufacture a coherent network of relational elements that seems totally convincing, because every element of the relational structure is occupied by a label.

0195 Inadvertently, the author reveals this in his defense of Traducianism.

In his innocence and earnestness, Loke demonstrates how we may use spoken words to confuse ourselves. Can we label the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “intelligence” and “stupidity”? The moment that we do, some customers will demand the “intelligent” fruits and leave the “stupid” fruits for the less choosy.

Are the picky customers ahead of the game?

Or, are the less choosy correct in concluding that the fruits are all the same?

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

0196 With that said, I conclude my examination of this work, full of intelligence and stupidity, just as one expects from a descendant of Adam and Eve. My thanks go to the author. The arguments offered in this book tell me that we stand on the verge of a new age of understanding, where everything old is made new again.

10/30/23

Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (Part 1 of 22)

0001 The full title of Deely’s book is Semiotic Animal: A Postmodern Definition of “Human Being” Transcending Patriarchy and Feminism: to supersede the ancient and medieval ‘animal rationale’ along with the modern ‘res cogitans’. The book is published in 2010 by St. Augustine’s Press in South Bend, Indiana.

John Deely (1942-2017 AD) starts as a Thomist interested in Heidegger and becomes a semiotician. He becomes a really, really good promoter of the study of signs. He writes a history of philosophy from the point of view of the revelation… or, is it discovery?.. that the sign is a triadic relation. For years, he teaches at University of Saint Thomas, Houston. He retires, moves to Latrobe, Pennsylvania, home of St. Vincent’s College, then dies.

This examination is to be read in parallel with or after reading (and writing marginalia) in Deely’s book. My argument may run like a dog on a long leash, compared to Deely’s argument. But, there is reason for the analogy. Thirteen years have passed since publication and five years since Deely’s burial, and the Age of Triadic Relations continues to manifest.

Semiotics is the study of signs. A sign is a triadic relation.

0002 Chapter one considers a question that we ask ourselves.

Humans, what type of animals are they?

Chapter two addresses the answer.

0003 Modern philosophy starts (more or less) when Rene Descartes (1596-1650 AD) presents a sensation, as an idea and an image where the object of experience directs a construct of the mind. Consequently, he regards humans as thinking things… or the owners of thinking things (minds)… or something like that.

In terms of Peirce’s philosophy, there are two contiguous actualities, characteristic of the category of secondness. They are an object of experience and a construct of the mind. The contiguity (which, for nomenclature, is placed in brackets) is “directs”.

Here is a picture of Descartes’ dyadic actuality. In Latin, the title is “res cogitans“.

0005 As already noted, this hylomorphic structure is coherent with Peirce’s category of secondness. The actuality corresponds to a sensation. Sensation exhibits a dyadic character. Sensation is like cause [and] effect or matter [substantiating] form.

There is an implicit claim that this dyad describes the way humans think.

Plus, a superior claim (not realized until Charles Peirce (1839-1914 AD) wrote about it) may be asserted. Humans think in terms of triadic relations, such a signs, mediations, judgments and category-based nested forms.

Say what?

See A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0006 With the superior claim in mind, it is no surprise that when later philosophers build epistemologies upon Descartes’ foundation, they end up shifting Descartes’ terms out of secondness, the realm of actuality, and into thirdness, the realm of normal contexts, and firstness, the realm of possibility.

Here is a category-based nested form that sort of captures Kant’s epistemology.

The normal context of the mind₃ brings the actuality of an object of experience₂ into relation with the potential of a particular condition₁. What is that condition? The thing itself [cannot be objectified as] what one sees, hears, smells, tastes or touches.

0007 So, the experience of the five senses₂ becomes an object₂ as it simultaneously is contextualized by the mind₃ and arises from the potential of a particular condition₁. Plus, the particular condition₁ is that the object of experience cannot be the thing itself₁.

It sort of like saying that my image in a mirror is not me, even though I appear to be the object of experience.

0008 Welcome to modern… philosophy?… er… science?

The Positivist’s judgment formalizes the quasi-Kantian category-based nested form by thirdly, replacing the mind₃ with a positivist intellect₃. The positivist intellect₃ rules out metaphysics. Secondly, the object of experience₂ is replaced by an empirio-schematic judgment₂, where disciplinary language (relation) brings observations and measurements of phenomena (what is) into relation with mathematical or mechanical models (what ought to be). Firstly, the thing itselfand what one senses₁ are replaced by Latin terms, the noumenon and its phenomena₁.

Here is a diagram of the Positivist’s judgment as a category-based nested form.

0009 The implications of the conversion of Descartes’ dyadic formula for sensation to a modern quasi-Kantian nested form for how humans think are most curious.

It seems that the construct of the mind weaves a normal context₃ and potential₁, sort of like a spider spinning a web in the hope of catching a flying insect. The metaphorical flying insect, is an experience₂ that immediately becomes an object₂as the manifestation of the realness of the normal context₃ and potential₁. Plus, the object₂ is inside of the observer and the thing itself₁ remains (potentially) on the outside.

Similarly, for the Positivist’s judgment, the scientist weaves the normal context of the positivist intellect₃ with the potential that phenomena₁ may be the observable and measurable facets of a noumenon₁, then waits for observations and measurements (what is) to reveal patterns that can be modeled (what ought to be) and discussed with disciplinary precision (relation between what is and what ought to be)₂. One of the oldest adages in science says, “First, observe phenomena. Second, explain them.”

0010 What a curious implication.

It is almost as if the construct of the mind is looking for an actuality₂ that fits its ideals. And when it does, it transforms whatever enters the realm of actuality, such as an experience₂ or a measurement₂, into an object₂ or an empirio-schematic judgment₂.

10/27/23

Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (Part 2 of 22)

0011 Idealism looks for something₂ that it can turn into an object₂ or an empirio-schematic judgment₂.

What about realism?

0012 In Aristotle’s hylomorphe, matter and form are real elements and the contiguity is called “substance” (a technical use that may or may not cohere with traditional definitions of the word). Here is a picture.

0013 I suppose Aristotle’s philosophy is realist.

So, let me see what happens to the hylomorphe when it is tossed into an appropriate category-based nested form.

Okay. That is a little disappointing. I thought I would have arrows going in every direction, as in the first blog.

0014 Let me try another. “Stipulation” is a spoken word. How does the spoken word, “stipulation” pan out as an actuality, according to Razie Mah in How To Define The Word “Religion”?

Another disappointment with realism.

0015 Well, what if I go one step further and remind myself that, according the linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913 AD), spoken language consists of two arbitrarily related systems of differences, parole and langue. Parole is “talk”. Langue is “language” (or whatever is going on in one’s head during conversation).

According to Saussure, for spoken words, parole [stipulates] langue₂.

Now, I have another example of the idealist approach, with a parallel to modern epistemology.

10/26/23

Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (Part 3 of 22)

0016 In chapter two, modern philosophy takes flight toward its twilight and, in chapter three, we enter the dawn of a new understanding of human beings.

0017 Two independent lines of thought develop in Europe and in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The lines seem a little crossed. On the American side, Charles Peirce reproduces the Baroque scholastic definition of the sign as a triadic relation. Yes, Baroque scholasticism sounds like Europe. On the European side, Ferdinand de Saussure recognizes that his novel model of language occasions an inquiry into sign-causality. To me, this sounds quite American. Language is a sign-machine, consisting of two arbitrarily related systems of differences.

0018 Consider a map of Pennsylvania. This map is an example of a nonarbitrary or a motivated or a systematically related system of differences. The roads on the map are signifiers. The actual roads are the signified.

0019 Consider spoken languages. Talk (in French, parole) consists in one system of differences. Each uttered word is distinct from all other words. Another term for a finite set of differences is a symbolic order. What goes on in one’s head while talking (in French, langue) consists in the other set of differences. According to Saussure, the relation between parole and langue is arbitrary. Or, one can say, parole [stipulates] langue, where the contiguity, “stipulation”, is arbitrary.

0020 Note how I can depict these examples as hylomorphes.

A map [ overlays ] a landscape.

Parole [stipulates ] langue.

Plus, the latter dyad captures the flavor of Descartes’ original hylomorphe describing humans as thinking things.

0021 Saussure’s hylomorphe is versatile, because parole and langue can serve as bread for a sandwich filled with expansions of the contiguity, [stipulates]. The terms, signifier and signified, to an Aristotelian, are a little misleading, because the signified is typically “out there” (like a landscape) and the signifier is typically “ready to hand” (like a map). But, the signified is simultaneously “in here”, because all one has to do is look to see the road that corresponds to a line on the map. Even more “in here” are images of the road conjured when looking at a map while planning a trip at home. No wonder Saussureans elevate the mental image of the road (“in here”) and ignore the road itself (“out there”).

Another pairing is acoustic signal (signifier) and neural signal (signified), the stuff of cognitive psychology. These are a few of the obvious pairings that can expand the contiguity between parole and langue.

Imagine how many academic works can be formulated based on an ever-expanding “stipulation”. Every researcher can discover or further develop one layer within the center of the intellectual sandwich.

0022 Yet, none of these sandwiches are satisfying, in the human sense of the word, because (if humans are semiotic animals, then) humans think in terms of signs… er… triadic relations.

0023 In order to understand an actuality₂, the human conjures (if that is the proper word for it) a normal context₃ and its potential₁. This is apparent for Aristotle’s rational inquiry. A thing is an actuality₂. Actuality₂ belongs to secondness. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. So, the actuality₂ becomes matter [contiguity] form₂ as the normal context₃ (of rational inquiry₃) and its potential₁ (of Aristotle’s four causes and similar schema₁) are conjured.

Check points 0014 and 0015 for that one.

10/25/23

Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (Part 4 of 22)

0024 What is odd about Saussure’s semiological and Decartes’ thinking-thing formulations is that the apparent dyadic actuality unwinds into something actual₂ (parole₂) as well as something that empowers an understanding of something actual₃₍₍₁₎₎, the normal context of langue₃ and the potential that a signified [cannot be objectified as] its signifier₁.

0025 This unwinding produces a nested form where someone saying something becomes Saussure’s parole₂, in the normal context of langue₃ (what is going on in one’s mind) with its potential that the signified [cannot be objectified as] the signifier₁.

0026 What does the normal context of langue₃ mean?

Langue is French for “language”. It roughly corresponds to what is going on in one’s head during conversation in speech-alone talk. For Saussure, langue consists of a system of differences. As a normal context₃, langue₃ can be regarded as a highly evolved sorting machine, where a spoken word₂ is paired to a potential signified₁, all the while knowing that the spoken-word₂ signifier₁ does not really objectify the thing itself₁. Neither does the mental-process signified₁, even though the mental-process₁ stands in the place of the thing itself₁.

Does this make sense?

0027 What does the potential of a signified [cannot be objectified by] its signifier(s)₁ imply?

Well, it seems that a signifier₁ potentiates parole₂, as each signifier₁ fills a place in vocal system of differences₂. The corresponding signified₁ underlies langue₃, in so far as it₁ occupies a place in a mental system of differences.

Plus, parole₂ belongs to secondness, the realm of actuality, langue₃ belongs to thirdness, the realm of normal contexts₃, and the signified-signifier distinction₁ belongs to firstness, the realm of possibility₁.

Furthermore, Saussure’s semiology can be compared to the Positivist’s judgment, insofar as both may be portrayed as category-based nested forms.

Semiology applies to spoken language. The Positivist’s judgment applies to scientific inquiry into nature.

0028 Note that the actuality₂ of the Positivist’s judgment is the empirio-schematic judgment₂, which consists of three elements: relation (disciplinary language), what is (measurements) and what ought to be (mathematical and mechanical models). A judgment brings what is and what ought to be into relation.

The comparison bears fruit with the realization that semiology’s parole₂ corresponds to an empirio-schematic actuality₂that includes parole₂, in the style of a disciplinary language (relation)₂. Both models (what ought to be)₂ and observations (what is)₂ are couched in terms of a disciplinary language (relation)₂.

Plus, signifiers₁ are comparable to phenomena₁. A signified₁ is comparable to a thing itself₁.

Finally, the positivist intellect₃ appears to be a style of langue₃.

0029 What is interesting is the sequence of events in semiology and in the Positivist’s judgment. For semiology, a speech act₂ enters into the slot for actuality₂ and activates the langue₃ signified-signifier₁ machine. For the Positivist’s judgment, the positivist intellect₃ is always promoting awareness of phenomena₁ in such a manner that a scientist tries to put something (perhaps, corresponding to a noumenon) into words₂. So, the normal context₃ and the potential₁ are hoping for and are prepared for a particular style of actuality₂.

0030 What does this imply?

Both Descartes’ and Saussure’s dyads have the structure of secondness. Descartes and Saussure, each in his own way, promote the idea of the human as a res cogitans, a thing that thinks. When these two speak of “relation”, they mean the dyadic structure of cause and effect.

Typically, a hylomorphic structure enters the slot for actuality₂ in a category-based nested form. This fosters understanding.

However, we do not try to understand these dyads. Instead, we unfold these dyads into category-based nested forms, in a systematic fashion. One element of the dyad associates to actuality₂. The other element of the dyad associates to both normal context₃ and potential₁. One element of the dyad becomes like a fly. The other element of the dyad becomes like the spider’s web.

0031 These lines of thought, using only category-based nested forms, supports Deely’s contention that humans are semiotic animals, rather than rational animals (a modern and a premodern view) or thinking things (a modern view).

Peirce publishes his New List of Categories on May 14, 1867. Deely suggests this moment as the inaugural date for The Age of Triadic Relations.